I have a few questions regarding the idea that all R U106 in the Isles is explained away by the Germanic expansions and welcome positive and informed thoughts on the subject. Now my understanding of this model is that it is formed of a number of strands, which themselves raise interesting considerations.

Firstly, am I near the mark to claim that according to Busby et al, there is about 20% R U106 in the population of the Isles? If so it is a significant figure and has been explained as reflecting the second area of inquiry, the sources that first described the Germanic invasions of the Isles, Gildas and later Bede. Both of whose writings set in stone the concept of mass invasion, conquest and settlement, a model which was also to give rise to the idea of massive population displacement of the Romano-British to the west, or overseas to Brittany. This version of events, though coming under scrutiny by some historians, remains an important element in the thinking of those who are followers of the mass invasions by Germanic peoples into the Isles.

Along with the paucity of Brythonic language entering the English language, the dominance of Anglo-Saxon place-names, the alluring testament left by those two commentators is held aloft as evidence of such a process. Yet questions are being asked by historians as to the accuracy and reliability of those sources, if they were free of bias or exaggeration for purposes of politics. Whatever the facts it seems the case is not proven with ongoing debate and indeed revision, in which rather than waves of migrations from Jutes, Angles or Friesians, a military and economic elite may it seems have gained dominance, without the wholesale displacement and marginalization of Romano-British peoples. In this model the emphasis is placed more upon a form of cultural assimilation and political or economic control, where the former British society was able to continue for a period. No doubt this interpretation has its critics, yet we should remember that the archaeology has occasionally supported such a continuum, offering a very different insight concerning the period of Germanic invasion and settlement.

If there is indeed any substance to this revised understanding then the current estimated population total for R U106 is bathed in an interesting light, why do I say this? Well the view that accepts the figure as indicative of that Germanic settlement in reasonably assessing the merit of such a claim would need to examine more closely the foundations upon which that concept is built, most surely the historic sources mentioned, along with a balanced assessment of the current debate regarding the actual extent of Germanic input into the Isles. Such an inquiry would inevitably lead to questions on the significant percentage of the Haplogroup in the Isles and if (given the alternative model suggesting not mass migration and displacement) its current frequency can be attributed to such migrations alone?

Maybe answers can be found in the YDNA surveys that were undertaken within Britain, again no doubt they may not have been without some limitation or detractors, yet they could offer some illumination regarding the question. The findings of both, as far I can understand, did not conclude a massive Anglo-Saxon heritage, the more complete 2003 study for example suggested that there may have been substantially less Anglo-Saxon migration. While Sykes and Oppenheimer claimed that even within those regions of Eastern England, often associated with heavy Anglo-Saxon settlement, “no more than 10% of paternal lines may be designated as coming from an "Anglo-Saxon" migration event and that in the same English regions 69% of male lines are still of aboriginal origin.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_BritainNow such interpretations and studies will naturally have their critics, particularly from among those who find it difficult to let go of long held orthodoxies on the subject. Others may suggest that Bodmer's study provides more comprehensive results that reflect a more dominant Germanic settlement in some regions. Yet no matter such objections clearly if we consider in the whole the revisions of historical sources, emerging archaeology and various genetic studies, notwithstanding their limitations, there does seem to be a case to question the notion of huge numbers of Anglo Saxons displacing the British population.

Back then to this present frequency of R U106, a not inconsiderable figure at nearly a quarter of the entire population, can we so confidently assert, given the aforementioned considerations, that it's due to the period of the Germanic Expansion? Moreover even if we could show that to be the case it begs the question what was the Haplogroup demographic of the assorted Jutes, Angles and Fresians, surely there would have been a spread of various Haplogroups including I1 ,R1a, even possibly Q which some regard as arriving arrived with the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Jutes? That being so the actual percentage of Germanic settlers who were R U106 could have been fairly lower than we can imagine, unless of course such invasions were composed of homogeneous groups. What circumstances then could evolve and prevail, from which, what we may reasonably imagine to be such a relatively minor number could establish themselves to reach such a present level? Can we really be satisfied with the idea that it is all due to Germanic incursions? Let's ask someone with a long record of debate and knowledge on the subject.

“In my opinion, not all British U106 is Germanic. I think some arrived in the Middle Bronze Age with a pre-Proto-Celtic expansion (attested archaeologically by the Deverel-Rimbury culture, would have also brought the high amount of L11* and S116* seen), then some more with the Proto-Celtic expansion in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (attested archaeologically by the Atlantic Bronze Age, would also have brought the high amount of L21 seen), and a third wave with Gallo-Brittonic Hallstatt/La Tene expansions (which would have also brought U156 to Britain). However, I agree that the bulk of the U106 (around 70%) is probably Germanic, as otherwise the dramatic drop in U106 frequencies in Wales and to a lesser extent in Cornwall would be unexplainable.” rms2 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26106.html)

Quite so. Of course those estimations being valid it would leave around 30% non-Germanic R U106 as possibly present in the Isles, that is sufficiently large enough figure to caution against insisting that simply because an individual is from the Isles and belongs to that Haplogroup they are by definition descended from a Germanic source.

I have a few questions regarding the idea that all R U106 in the Isles is explained away by the Germanic expansions and welcome positive and informed thoughts on the subject. ...

Your emphasis that all U106 is not Germanic so all you have to do is show evidence that there is some U106 that has high probability of not being Germanic. I think Alan has already suggested the way to approach this. Can you find U106 in generally non-Anglo-Saxon areas, such as Ireland, that uniquely cluster to themselves and not to U106 in England or Denmark or Northern Germany?

Thanks for your input Mike, always welcome, informative and helpful. Conversely of course those who may insist that all R U 106 in the Isles is Germanic are required to furnish evidence to conclusively demonstrate that as a fact.

I have a few questions regarding the idea that all R U106 in the Isles is explained away by the Germanic expansions and welcome positive and informed thoughts on the subject. ...

Your emphasis that all U106 is not Germanic so all you have to do is show evidence that there is some U106 that has high probability of not being Germanic. I think Alan has already suggested the way to approach this. Can you find U106 in generally non-Anglo-Saxon areas, such as Ireland, that uniquely cluster to themselves and not to U106 in England or Denmark or Northern Germany?

Thanks for your input Mike, always welcome, informative and helpful. Conversely of course those who may insist that all R U 106 in the Isles is Germanic are required to furnish evidence to conclusively demonstrate that as a fact.

Is anyone on this forum insisting all R-U106 is in the British Isles is of Old Germanic lineages?

Let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

If no one speaks, then why not drop your declared requirement since no one disagrees or no one cares? Instead, focus on showing your hypothesis is true.

Mike I agree with your points, however they appear to rest on an assumption that I was specifically addressing people limited to contributors on the Forum, of course I did not state that. the points and questions raised are general in that regard. Hope that clears that up and maybe we can address what in my opinion is an interesting and valid topic for discussion.

Mike I agree with your points, however they appear to rest on an assumption that I was specifically addressing people limited to contributors on the Forum, of course I did not state that. the points and questions raised are general in that regard. Hope that clears that up and maybe we an address what in my opinion is an interesting and valid topic for discussion.

If you are addressing someone on a different, who cares? It's like arguing with the air. Please consider going to the forums where they are are and lay your requirements on them.

As far as your opposing hypothesis, can you show some clusters that appear to be clearly non-Germanic? I don't know, but I personally think the odds are with you. You may have to do some recruiting of people from Ysearch and helping them get upgraded, though.

Mike, your description of the questions I raise, in a loose and generalized sense, as a 'hypothesis' is stretching definitions a touch, I am merely asking some questions on the topic with reference to various prevailing ideas. I hope within that context and not the petrie dish of examination you seem to be requesting, that they are sufficiently broad and of interest to a wide an audience as possible, including many who may not possess your depth of knowledge or experience in the field.

I think inver2b1 made a sensible suggestion, whoknows. My approach would be to reveal surname & matches info. That way, people could perhaps see if you did/didn't have obvious connections to those with Germanic tribal origins.

Occasionally bizarre situations occur in history which place people in regions they wouldn't normally inhabit. The 17th C Highland prisoners who were brought to the E Anglian Fens to build waterways being such a case.

If no easily explainable non-Celtic links to you exist, & an ancient U106+ presence in Ireland becomes a more likely option, then I think more people will be sympathetic to your quest.

If we need a groundswell of people who also don't care -- and agree with Mike, Rich et al that one unquenchable poster is blowing smoke, under a pretense of being "objective" -- I, for one, don't care in the least. Even when I'm wide awake and completely sober. It's a deeply unimportant theoretical question, on which there has been no meaningful disagreement, here.

One might profitably glance at who started the thread -- that information is displayed.

The question you present is very difficult to answer, especially since I spend a lot of time in the P312 world, but I'll give it a shot:

We have two vague reference points from ancient DNA: two M269(xU106) Bell Beaker samples from eastern Germany and the "probable" U106+ Urnfield sample from north-central Germany. These results of these two samples are in direct contrast to the hobbyist view that U106 must have come from the east (Poland/Estonia) because of higher variance. I say this because both BB samples were U106- and because only 1 of the 13 Urnfield samples were "U106". Of course, we should take great caution with this interpretation based on so few samples.

I think it is more likely that U106 sprang up near the source of the Rhine (SW Germany/NE Switzerland) sometime during the (Copper Age/Early Bronze Age) and made its way down the Rhine. A more southern origin would explain why such a high percentage of U106 in southern Europe is DYS390=24 instead of the "Frisian" modal of DYS390=23. Then again, I think I recall DYS390=24 being modal in eastern Europe, so again I use caution.

With the Rhenish Beakers, I think a very important amount of IE speaking U106+ crossed the channel and I think that excluding U106 from this migration is unrealistic. Since these were IE speakers, they would not have left a "Germanic" linguistic impact on the island as the Anglo-Saxons would have later on. Perhaps they were mostly DYS390=24 and DYS390=23 came later. What percentage of British U106 is Rhenish Beakers and what percentage is Anglo-Saxon? Quite honestly, I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone else can either unless there is a deep dive into U106 subclades. The Anglo-Saxon invasions occurred so relatively late that there is no doubt that they were already an alphabet soup of haplogroups.

This is where my speculation ends. I'm sure that someone who has looked at U106 in depth (Peter M?) will cut my observations up and swallow them whole - and it will serve me right for sticking my nose in something I don't know much about! :) But all kidding aside, I think this is an important enough topic for our knowledge of R1b to keep it going with some more insight. Hopefully this hot-button of a topic will help recruit some much needed U106 folks, which in these P312 dominant forums, are sorely needed.

You cite Oppenheimer and Sykes work as evidence...Their work is a little outdated now, for a few reasons.

Most importantly, their work was published before much was known about the subclades of r1b. This is significant as not much can be told about population history without knowing the regional distribution of R1b subclades. They both used a "clans" system, and Oppenheimer's was based upon just 6 markers.

Another major flaw is their use of the evolutionary rate, which exegerate TRMCA's by 3 times. Thus, "clans" which most likely arrived in Bronze age times, ca. 4000 years, are found to be consistent with post-Ice age dates of over 10,000 years.

And last of all, the most outdated part is their belief in the Iberian Refuge theory.

So what's the truth? At a basic level the amount of U106 in the Isles proves a large genetic contribution (over half) from North German and Scandinavian areas since atleast the Bronze Age based upon the following assumptions:

-U106 is less than 4500 years old. Most TRMCA estimates so far have come close to this, or a little less.

-U106 originated in Northern Europe and was carried elsewhere by migrants from there.

-The amount of U106 in Northern European populations has remained at a similar level (25-35 percent) throughout this time period. This is probably the biggest of the assumptions, but as there haven't been many significant population movements to Northern Europe since the Bronze age, I'll accept it.

-Following from the above assumption, approximately 30 percent (or possibly less) of these North European immigrants would be carrying U106. U106 varies a little among Germanic population, with a peak in the Netherlands, declining towards the North-East.

If all that is right, then around 2/3rds of English and East Scottish men could have Y-DNA traceable to the North.

Getting around to answering your question, IMO not much of the U106 in Britain is from non-Germanic invaders. There's little U106 in areas known to have been invaded by the Celts. North Spain (Celtiberia) has a lot of L21, the "Celtic"* clade, but not much U106.

And the Bell Beakers? Not much U106 in most areas they were around.

So IMO there's no reason to think those two major migrations to Britain brought much U106 with them. This leaves the third known migration: The Germanic migration period.

If all this is true, then the main contributor to U106 in Britain is indeed most likely post-Roman Germanics. This is an educated guess, but maybe 15 percent of it may be pre-Germanic. If that's right, than the two-thirds (66 percent) would be more like 50-60 percent.

That's in line with other estimates of the Germanic contribution to Britain, such as "Y -Chromosome evidence for mass Anglo Saxon migration" and a recent study showing 50 percent of British men to carry the Germanic "Frisian" marker. That was reported in the Daily Mail and Der Spiegel, but I've seen no paper. Maybe it'll turn up sometime.

* This is based upon another assumption that L21 was largely spread by the Celts.

I agree the whole Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries link should have brough some flow between England and as far east as Holland. In fact that is no big deal anyway because places like Holland were also stronly linked to the isles in the beaker periodl However, U106 in west of the Elbe is just not old enough for that period if the variance is correct. I believe that U106 as a whole is dated to 2000BC or a little earlier but U106 west of the Elbe was more like 1000BC. I dont know what it was as far west as Holland but it cant be very old. Has anyone got an intraclade variance for Dutch U106. Believe me I was perfectly happy with the idea that now-U106 rich areas were in contact with England from 2500BC-1500BC or so but it does not seem that U106 was in those now-U106-rich areas like Holland until after that.

Bob, How curious that I post a topic on a generalized subject with valid and relevant questions and I an expected to serve up personal data in order to appease a supposed skepticism. Your suggestion is saturated with a number assumptions, most importantly that I created this thread for some personal motive. Has it not occurred to you that my post was composed out of general interest and offered in a spirit of open and mature discussion. I trust that deals with your 'straw man' (as in fallacious strategy to deflect) offering.

Rich,

Thank you for your insightful and helpful response, I note with interest the points you raise and welcome sincerely your kindness in accepting my post for what it is, a fair and reasonable set of questions on a subject that far from proven conclusively invites further scrutiny. I trust fellow contributors will display a similar intelligence and open mindedness as your self.

Appreciate your comments on that, you present a reasoned and persuasive argument, although I am sure some may find questions on various assertions, such is the nature of speculation on a topic for which we remain disadvantaged in terms of scientific evidence to more definitively determine a conclusion. As to my reference to Sykes et al I trust you noted that I did not affirm their findings as conclusive evidence per se and emphasized there are those who consider their findings questionable. Moreover, I also cited findings that claimed much higher 'Germanic' frequencies in some regions, so in that sense I sought to offer a balanced view on the subject.

Whoknows: I assumed you were trying to find your true tribal origins. If you say that your interest isn't concerned with that, then I'll accept your word. It is possible that someone on this forum MAY have info to help you, but without knowing your surname etc , they'd have little chance. I gather you find my posts irritating, so if you wish, please tell me & I'll desist. I was only offering suggestions. Cheers,Bob

I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all. All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old. Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger. I hope someone can number crunch that. What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine. Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times. Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

As for Oppenheimer-basically his ideas are all wrong because of his dating methods. An in terms of the high amount of U106 in Britain, I look on that the same as L21. Its what happens when an elite group have a long period of dominance.

Another observation I would make is if U106 in Ireland at an early stage, a society dominated by clan lineages, then it would surely be reflected in some deep lineages of U106 in pre-VIking/Norman descended Irish clans and by some geographical pattern. It doesnt seem that way. It seems scattered and not dominant in any clan. I cant be sure but this pattern seems to me to look like an atypical element that got in here and there in Ireland.

Here is a question - out of all Irish tested (other than those with names suggestive of later incomers), what percentage of Irish are U106. Basically divide the number of native Irish surmed U106 by all Irish of any clade or haplogroup. I suspect that would be an absolutely tiny figure. Why is it so small, non-surname correlated and non-Geographically patterned if it is old?

The question you present is very difficult to answer, especially since I spend a lot of time in the P312 world, but I'll give it a shot:

We have two vague reference points from ancient DNA: two M269(xU106) Bell Beaker samples from eastern Germany and the "probable" U106+ Urnfield sample from north-central Germany. These results of these two samples are in direct contrast to the hobbyist view that U106 must have come from the east (Poland/Estonia) because of higher variance. I say this because both BB samples were U106- and because only 1 of the 13 Urnfield samples were "U106". Of course, we should take great caution with this interpretation based on so few samples.

I think it is more likely that U106 sprang up near the source of the Rhine (SW Germany/NE Switzerland) sometime during the (Copper Age/Early Bronze Age) and made its way down the Rhine. A more southern origin would explain why such a high percentage of U106 in southern Europe is DYS390=24 instead of the "Frisian" modal of DYS390=23. Then again, I think I recall DYS390=24 being modal in eastern Europe, so again I use caution.

With the Rhenish Beakers, I think a very important amount of IE speaking U106+ crossed the channel and I think that excluding U106 from this migration is unrealistic. Since these were IE speakers, they would not have left a "Germanic" linguistic impact on the island as the Anglo-Saxons would have later on. Perhaps they were mostly DYS390=24 and DYS390=23 came later. What percentage of British U106 is Rhenish Beakers and what percentage is Anglo-Saxon? Quite honestly, I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone else can either unless there is a deep dive into U106 subclades. The Anglo-Saxon invasions occurred so relatively late that there is no doubt that they were already an alphabet soup of haplogroups.

This is where my speculation ends. I'm sure that someone who has looked at U106 in depth (Peter M?) will cut my observations up and swallow them whole - and it will serve me right for sticking my nose in something I don't know much about! :) But all kidding aside, I think this is an important enough topic for our knowledge of R1b to keep it going with some more insight. Hopefully this hot-button of a topic will help recruit some much needed U106 folks, which in these P312 dominant forums, are sorely needed.

Yes there is no question that the possibility of U106 in Britian all hinge on the position of U106 on the continent at various dates. Without that there is little point in discussing it. IF it was around the Rhine in 2500BC then no doubt it would have been in Britain from the beaker period onwards. IF it was east of the Elbe until 3000 years ago then I think the opposite is true. However, variance is normally taken as the main tool of establishing age of a clade in any given area. I understand U106 has a low variance in much of Germanic Europe. However, I would love to see for example a variance calculation for U106 in the Low Countries or even the latter pooled with Denmark and the north German coast. As I said, I recall that being done and a low variance being found

Do you think that you would be able to persuade Irishmen to test for a subclade of R1b that you have given a Saxon label?

This why I don't like attaching ethnic labels to haplogroups. It is true, that a particular haplogroup may be very prevalent in one culture and not another. However, it is NOT true then that everyone who is of one culture, but of a hapogroup that is dominant elsewhere, is a recent immigrant into their culture.

Umm... let me go down the list. I'm not trying to, but I can certainly upset a few folks along the way.

Just because you are L21, doesn't mean you can't be German, even Old German.Just because you are U106, doesn't mean you can't be Irish, even Old Irish.Just because you are U152, doesn't mean you can't be Irish, even Old Irish.Just because you are DF27, doesn't mean you can't be Polish, never having an ancestor who set foot in Iberia.Just because you are M222 and in Scandinavia, doesn't mean your lineage was brought there by slaves.This goes on and on.

I would venture to guess there are some limits to this where continental boundaries are substantial. For instance, I think it is reasonable to propose that if you are L21 you are not Native American, at least prior to Erickson/Columbus et al. Even that can be argued, though.

Sometimes the original ethnic labels stick and even when later data shows something to contrary, much needed testing is hard to come by.

If we need a groundswell of people who also don't care -- and agree with Mike, Rich et al that one unquenchable poster is blowing smoke, under a pretense of being "objective" -- I, for one, don't care in the least. Even when I'm wide awake and completely sober. It's a deeply unimportant theoretical question, on which there has been no meaningful disagreement, here.

One might profitably glance at who started the thread -- that information is displayed.

Amen. I don't care either, mainly because of the source and the motivation driving him.

I don't think there is much likelihood that any of the U106 in modern Ireland has a source from before the historical period. I also don't think much U106 got to Britain before the historical period, but there the likelihood may be slightly greater.

I am labouring this point because it is not being taken seriously BUT the starting point is establishing WHERE U106 was in say 2500-1500BC if things like Rhenish beakers and Deveral-Rimbury-Low Countries connections are to be of any relevance at all. All I know is that variance would indicate that if U106 as a whole is only 4000 years old then variance would suggest that U106 west of the Rhine is only 3000 years old. Dutch/Flemish U106 may be even younger. I hope someone can number crunch that. What evidence we have places U106 in east of the Elbe until late in the Bronze Age and in an interaction zone that was distinct from the Atlantic one which stretched in various forms as far as the Rhine. Rokus blog has some good maps and analysis of the cultures and their affinities. If U106 arose from an L11* line in somewhere like Poland (as the variance suggest - dont get hung up on frequency) and remained in that area until a late thrust at the end of the Bronze Age (which is what the variance suggests) then extremely little U106 would have reached even eastern England in BC times. Its one thing crossing the North Sea from Holland but its quite another if you are on the Baltic.

As for Oppenheimer-basically his ideas are all wrong because of his dating methods. An in terms of the high amount of U106 in Britain, I look on that the same as L21. Its what happens when an elite group have a long period of dominance.

Another observation I would make is if U106 in Ireland at an early stage, a society dominated by clan lineages, then it would surely be reflected in some deep lineages of U106 in pre-VIking/Norman descended Irish clans and by some geographical pattern. It doesnt seem that way. It seems scattered and not dominant in any clan. I cant be sure but this pattern seems to me to look like an atypical element that got in here and there in Ireland.

Here is a question - out of all Irish tested (other than those with names suggestive of later incomers), what percentage of Irish are U106. Basically divide the number of native Irish surmed U106 by all Irish of any clade or haplogroup. I suspect that would be an absolutely tiny figure. Why is it so small, non-surname correlated and non-Geographically patterned if it is old?